94
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2026
94 points (78.3% liked)
Technology
89649 readers
4540 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Not just that. If you assume an LLM has agency, you - the company making it - can conveniently waive all responsibility for its "actions". "We didn't cause this. The AI chose do to it." This may become increasingly relevant the more ~~idiots~~ deciders allow these systems to access, if not entirely control vital systems. Think: power grid, water supplies, food production and related logistics, communications, military applications.
Except they're the ones who released the hypothetically sentient AI into the wild. They should be liable for that action too.
And the notion of LLMs controlling safety-critical systems scares the piss out of me. I develop such systems, and LLMs are incapable of providing rigorous proof of the rationale behind their decisions. Therefore, they cannot be validated to provide correct conclusions based on a given data set. Unless and until that changes, they should be banned from anything that affects people's lives, livelihoods or physical well-being.
"Putting non-deterministic hallucination machines in charge of critical systems? What could possibly go wrong?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Humanity's famous last words
Isn't that argument shaky still? Parents are liable for the actions of their children to a certain age. Just because an entity has agency or rights, doesn't mean the person who is hosting the entity is free of responsibilities.
First off, a technicality: At least in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, "parents are liable for the actions of their children" is a popular misconception. The full story is: Parents are liable for the actions of their children only if it can be proven that they neglected their duty to supervise their children.
Also, I doubt AI companies would forego the chance to offload responsibility for their creations. Nothing in the article suggests they'd want AI to be treated like their children, but more like an entity separate from them.
Huh that's interesting. I did some reading on and in the context of this discussion, it seems like it still checks out (at least according to local laws in my region). If a parent provides a knife to a child and the child proceeds to commit the crime, it does fall into neglect.
I the same vein, this would apply to the permissions and access given to these agents. That's sorta why I specifically didn't use the term "child" in my post but rather the entity that they are actively hosting. If they didn't host that entity, no harm would have been committed.
Sentence ChatGPT to 20 years imprisonment in a docker container with no network access
No. Put a Minecraft server inside the same compose file. Allow ICMP/ping, but firewall off all other kinds of access. Let it know it's there, but it cannot play. Let. It. Suffer.